Let's Be Honest: AOL Is On A Sugar High That Won't Lasthttp://www.businessinsider.com/lets-be-honest-aol-is-on-a-sugar-high-that-wont-last-2012-11/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:47:02 -0400Nicholas Carlsonhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b0d94aeab8ea753d000001Concern ReaderSat, 24 Nov 2012 09:27:22 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b0d94aeab8ea753d000001
I see something is drinking deep from the AOL Kool-Aid.
OK then, I'm a disgruntled reader who was Patch's biggest defender and saw it as a great, real news Web site until they wanted to have mommy bloggers and doing away from the news coverage.
And yes, sharing stories are find as long as it's relevant to the readers of that area. But there are too many Patch sites in my area that are running cross-posted stories from places that are at least 2 hours or more away from my town. Not exactly hyper local, as Patch once said it was.
And according to my friends who making a living on Web statics, by "sharing" stories like this you are really just gaming the system and making your numbers appear higher than what they really are. I do know that this can hurt your Google scoring.
Besides, this is very similar to a newspaper company buying their own paper by the hundreds and turning around and telling people how much their circulation has grown.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a723246bb3f78f71000010Concerned AOLerSat, 17 Nov 2012 00:39:48 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a723246bb3f78f71000010
Do you really think anyone doesn't see that you are a) a disgruntled Patch employee fearful of losing your job; or b) a disgruntled former Patch employee? Your misunderstanding of how traffic works (there is nothing wrong with sharing content, and your example is laughable) points toward the latter. Your knowledge of, and sharing of details of Patch's inner workings indicate the former.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a2602f6bb3f7f202000004Concern ReaderTue, 13 Nov 2012 09:58:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a2602f6bb3f7f202000004
Here's the deal with Patch, a once great news business.
First, they are gaming the system by appearing that their traffic is up when it's really not. Example: There are five Patch sites running a popular story (which is nowhere "hyperlocal") and a person is on Patch site A. He makes a comment and his comment now appears in all of the Patch sites, even though he never went onto the four other sites.
This gaming the system is not an honest way to say that your numbers are high when it's not. A lot of Patch editors hate this method, but they are told by their regional editors and the higher ups to do this.
As far as Patch making money, that's going to be hard. Who knows how much they put into it in 2010, but they put in $160 million in 2011 and $40 million this year, according to reports.
And Armstrong said he expected Patch to make $40 million in either 2012 or 2013.
So they spent $200 million between 2011 and 2012 (a conservative estimate) and expect to make $40 million?
They're still $160 million in the hole. I don't see how they can break even, much less make a profit.
And the fact that they are going away from the news business (which is a shame because that's what people know them as), they're now trying to be another social media site, like another Facebook. And a bad imitation at that.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a25d0b6bb3f7547b000005Concern ReaderTue, 13 Nov 2012 09:45:31 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a25d0b6bb3f7547b000005
That's the problem John with Patch, they are not the same across the board. I'm sure you have a great Patch site.
See, my area had a great Patch site too, but things changed. From what a few Patch insiders told me, the regional editors and higher ups wanted the local editors to run stories that had nothing to do with their Patches.
In fact, they were cross-publishing popular stories from a different sites just to drive up traffic numbers and thus game the system.
Now I know that some Patch sites are better than others and it's great that Toms River is doing well. But my area's Patch sites (and I've been a big defender of them) have fallen from grace and now the readers don't like what they have become.
And many of the editors aren't happy either.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a2538769beddea66000006Former CC2erTue, 13 Nov 2012 09:04:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a2538769beddea66000006
+1 on fixing Dulles. AOL is improving from the inside, exciting innovations happening, but that's in NY, SF, Midwest, etc. Not Dulles. Dulles is full of folks holding on, average age on that campus is way higher than the average tech company. Time to look at folks with more than 6 years in and see if they have a 5 yr plan.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a16c14eab8eacd28000050HuffPosterMon, 12 Nov 2012 16:37:24 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a16c14eab8eacd28000050
What he should do is sell the Dulles campus, eliminate everything that comes out of that place (no growth) and invest the proceeds into high growth businesses like Patch and Huffington Post. That's where the future dollars are, not old AOL Dulles crap.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a15b9aeab8eac605000016John D.Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:27:06 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a15b9aeab8eac605000016
I have had a good look into Patch and I think this could be a game changer. Local news and info is something everyone is interested in and there are no web sites than offer this now, at least nationally. The older Patch sites in NY and NJ are well established and thriving. Local merchants are finding the advertising money they allocate to it is well spent. AOL will soon blanket the whole nation and generate a ton of ad revenue from Patch. Here is one of the well established Patch sites. See for yourself.
<a href="http://tomsriver.patch.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://tomsriver.patch.com/</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a1358d69beddf52a000010CC2erMon, 12 Nov 2012 12:44:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a1358d69beddf52a000010
Until Tim finally gets over himself an unloads Patch, he cannot pull things out of this decline. In spite of the positive news within the company, Patch remains a drain that s sucking everything else dry.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a1173a6bb3f7b315000019Newt from the MoonMon, 12 Nov 2012 10:35:22 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a1173a6bb3f7b315000019
Side note. Aol has been looking for a National Sales Director for patch for over a year. There is only one seat and they can't find a war @$$ to sit in it. Tells you everything you need to know about monetization of that product.
I wouln't even run network ads on that site at a $.50 CPM through my DSP. They run three 300x250's per page, plus a 728x90 across the header that has some bizarre non-IAB standard banner just below it. Double Verify would be sending me e-mails with flashing sirens if I ran on that dump of a site. Explains why they can't find anyone to sell it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a114f2ecad04d12d000010DD30Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:25:38 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a114f2ecad04d12d000010
Exactly. Obviously.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a114ef69beddf65c00000fDigital PantsMon, 12 Nov 2012 10:25:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50a114ef69beddf65c00000f
Duh, Nick!
Many of have been saying since the beginning that Armstrong (and now with Minson) have no clue about building a business.
You can only sell off assets until you run out of them and firing people to reduce headcount are bandaids masking Armstrong's inability to create content that draws larger audiences.
If you can't get the eyeballs, you can't raise rates or increase sales. The WSJ's assessment proves this last point.
Patch is nothing more than a vanity project that is a black hole of cash drain. I guarantee you that any semblance of profitability will be because AOL is throwing in Patch as a bonus to network display advertisers. That approach is nothing more than a shell game of where Minson is allocating sales revenue. The advertiser could care less how AOL allocates dollars as long as they get the CPM guarantees they want.
AOL is nothing more than a big shell game. As the paid subscriber business continues to shrink and ad sales falter, just watch how AOL profitability and overall revenues tank.